FEATURE ARTICLE

650

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 58(8) May 2015 doi: 10.1002/jaal.418 © 2015 International Literacy Association (pp. 650–659)

Mediating Complex Texts in the Upper GradesC O N S I D E R I N G M O T I VAT I O N , I N S T R U C T I O N A L I N T E N S I T Y, A N D C O G N I T I V E C H A L L E N G E

Evelyn Ford-Connors , Susan Dougherty , Dana A. Robertson , & Jeanne R. Paratore

By integrating three key elements into their content- area instruction, teachers support the reading comprehension of all students in their classrooms—even those who struggle.

As the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) roll out across the U.S., attention has focused on the call for close reading of

increasingly complex texts. This requirement has generated concern among many middle and second-ary teachers who worry that students who struggle with reading will fall even further behind. Teachers’ concerns are not unfounded: by some estimates,

more than a third of 9th- grade students read two or more levels below grade benchmarks (Balfanz, McPartland, & Shaw, 2002 ). Moreover, recent as-sessments reveal that 70% of adolescents in the U.S. cannot read and write academic texts with profi-ciency (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2013 ).

Despite these difficult realities, building all stu-dents’ capacities to read and comprehend complex text is essential. The reason is simple: what we read influences what we learn. When only some students have access to complex text, the reading gap contrib-utes to an expanding knowledge gap (e.g., Stanovich, 2000 ). Reading complex text supports students’ acquisition of sophisticated and grade- appropriate vocabulary, concepts, and linguistic structures (e.g., Harris, 2005 ; Stahl & Nagy, 2006 ) and develops the general knowledge that anchors further reading and deepens learning (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998 ).

Additionally, texts in middle and secondary grades require an understanding of the unique ways knowledge is organized in each discipline (Monahan, 2013 ; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008 ). When asked to read disciplinary content, students engage in the

Evelyn Ford-Connors is a lecturer and the Associate Director of the Donald D. Durrell Reading and Writing Clinic in the Literacy and Language Program at Boston University, Massachusetts, USA; e- mail econnors@bu.edu .

Susan Dougherty is an assistant professor in the Department of Learning and Teaching at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA; e- mail susan.dougherty@gse.rutgers.edu .

Dana A. Robertson is an assistant professor in the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at the University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA; e- mail drober36@uwyo.edu .

Jeanne R. Paratore is a professor and the Director of the Donald D. Durrell Reading and Writing Clinic in the Literacy and Language Program at Boston University, Massachusetts, USA; e- mail jparator@bu.edu .

Authors (left to right)

651

Me

diat

ing

Com

ple

x Te

xts

in t

he U

pp

er G

rad

es:

Con

sid

erin

g M

otiv

atio

n, I

nstr

ucti

onal

Int

ensi

ty,

and

Co

gnit

ive

Cha

lleng

e

critical thinking and analysis that characterize the dis-cipline, building requisite knowledge to successfully prepare for the demands of our increasingly information- centric, global environment.

For many teachers, meeting CCSS demands for complex texts requires a shift in approach for strug-gling readers. Traditionally, teachers have met the range of reading needs in their classrooms in a few different ways. Some have focused on simplifying texts to more closely match students’ reading levels. Although this practice enables students to read text with little teacher mediation, changing the text also fundamentally changes students’ opportunities to learn; easier texts have less sophisticated syntax, vo-cabulary, and conceptual density, so expose students to fewer important ideas. Other teachers read aloud from classroom texts or have students take turns read-ing aloud. Although this practice exposes students to grade- level text, simply listening to a read- aloud is un-likely to build the vocabulary and concept knowledge needed to comprehend similar texts independently. While matching readers to instructional- level texts or listening as teachers read aloud from grade- level texts have a place, neither technique adequately prepares students to read and comprehend the complex syntax, vocabulary, and rich ideas of grade- level text (e.g., Frey & Fisher, 2013 ).

Instead, we must seek alternative interventions that support individual reading needs and help stu-dents acquire the linguistic and conceptual knowl-edge that anchor new learning (Henderson & Dorn, 2011 ). Such interventions require instructional ac-tions that also develop students’ skill and strategy knowledge, even as they navigate texts that expand world knowledge. Doing so requires attention to three key elements: motivation and engagement , in-structional intensity , and cognitive challenge . Each has shown to accelerate struggling students’ progress toward higher- level achievement (Conley, 2008 ; Guthrie & Humenick, 2004 ; Lipson & Wixson, 2009 ; Parr & Limbrick, 2010). In the next sections, we briefly examine each element and then demonstrate how together they help to bring complex text within all students’ reach.

Teaching Actions That Support Motivation Guthrie ( 2011 ) defines motivation as “the values, be-liefs and behaviors surrounding reading” (p. 177). Motivated readers believe reading is important and

valuable, and they have confidence they will succeed. Further, they read more texts, read more frequently, and read in greater depth than their less engaged peers (Lau, 2009 ), while also approaching texts more strategically (Taboada, Tonks, Wigfield, & Guthrie, 2009). Despite widespread belief that adolescent readers who struggle are disengaged and unmoti-vated, researchers have found that many such stu-dents are simply embarrassed by their difficulty (McCray, Vaughn, & La Vonne, 2001 ).

Although various factors contribute to students’ motivation and engagement in reading (e.g., prior successes with texts, text choices and purposes for reading, classroom contexts), research identifies par-ticular teaching actions that influence more engaged reading (Guthrie & Humenick, 2004 ; Guthrie, Klauda, & Ho, 2013 ). First, teachers who incorpo-rate knowledge goals establish the “real life” rele-vance of reading as a route to understanding the world outside of school. Second, establishing knowl-edge goals and relevance deepen existing interests and develop new ones. Third, embedding choice fos-ters students’ learning autonomy, whether choosing a specific text within a larger text set, where to work or with whom, or how to respond (e.g., orally or in writing). Finally, when teachers encourage collabo-ration , they capitalize on the importance of social interaction in learning as a means to support deeper text understanding (Reznitskaya, Glina, Carolan, Michaud, Rogers, & Sequeira, 2012 ) and develop students’ beliefs about the value of learning with oth-ers (Aukerman, 2007).

Teaching Actions That Increase Intensity Intensity strengthens students’ engagement with lit-eracy and builds instructional momentum. Intensity is realized when teachers explicitly link instructional elements and involve students in authentic tasks that contextualize literacy skills within purposeful, content- driven goals (Allington, 2011 ; Parr & Limbrick, 2010 ). Intensity also emerges when teach-ers move students beyond simple skill and knowledge acquisition to deeper explorations of ideas (Langer, 1999 ).

Four teaching actions intensify instruction and support all students’ learning. First, explicit instruc-tion about strategic processes (i.e., what to do, how to do it, and when and why to perform those actions), with frequent practice opportunities, provides

652

JOU

RN

AL

OF

AD

OLE

SC

ENT

& A

DU

LT L

ITER

AC

Y

58(

8)

MA

Y 20

15FEATURE ARTICLE

students with an integrated set of procedures for navi-gating text within the context of “real” reading (Alfassi, 2008 ; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983 ). Teaching students to be strategic, as opposed to just teaching strategies, promotes students’ ability to trans-fer strategic behaviors across texts and contexts (Aulls, 2002 ; Palincsar & Brown, 1986 ). Second, focused in-struction efficiently moves students toward targeted learning goals (Henderson & Dorn, 2011 ). Through ongoing, formative assessments, effective teachers calibrate their instruction to enable students to as-sume increasingly challenging tasks (Applebee & Langer, 1987 ). Third, appropriately paced instruction ensures that lesson segments are brisk and maximize the amount of time students are engaged in reading and writing connected text (Certo, Cauley, Moxley, & Chafin, 2008 ), while at the same time decreasing disruptive, off- task behaviors (Bost & Riccomini, 2006 ). Fourth, coherent instruction across tasks and contexts within class periods and from day- to- day af-fords students opportunities to explore content more deeply and to connect new information to previous understandings (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003 ; Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001 ). In concert with carefully planned in-structional sequences, teachers provide clear links and “reconstructive recaps” (Maloch, 2002 , p. 108) that connect current lessons with previous understandings.

Coherence also emerges through collaborative planning among teams of teachers who develop com-mon language and goals across classrooms and rein-force strategic behaviors from one classroom to another. These teaching actions strengthen students’ habits of mind and productive engagement in aca-demic activity.

Teaching Actions That Strengthen Cognitive Challenge Rigorous instruction and cognitive demand support adolescents’ critical reasoning and ability to grapple with complex content (Conley, 2008 ). Moreover, struggling adolescents’ assessed reading levels often belie their lived experiences and capacities to reason through important ideas, the very ideas found in com-plex texts but largely absent from texts that “match” their reading levels. When students engage with grade- appropriate texts, with thought- provoking themes and content (i.e., more complex), they are likelier to find the act of reading both cognitively

challenging and satisfying (Kucan & Palincsar, 2013 ); and through active engagement, they build rich stores of concepts and vocabulary that create knowledge (Vaughn, Swanson, Roberts, Wanzek, Stillman- Spisak, Solis, & Simmons, 2013 ).

Three teaching actions support low- performing readers’ achievement of cognitively challenging tasks. First, use of extended texts or topically related text sets promotes acquisition of sophisticated con-tent and vocabulary and builds stamina (McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009 ). Second, within topically re-lated text sets, including both easy and complex texts is important—opportunities to independently read easy texts provide low- performing readers a necessary foundation for reading and comprehending complex texts. Third, texts should address age-appropriate themes and content (Hindin, Morroco, & Aguilar, 2001 ) that stretch students’ thinking and challenge them as readers and learners. As students engage with cognitively challenging texts, teacher mediation will often be necessary. For example, teacher read- alouds followed by students re- reading of key sec-tions, chorally, with a partner, or independently, can prepare students to respond to text orally or in writing (Henderson & Dorn, 2011 ; Kuhn, Groff, & Morrow, 2011 ).

Mediating Complex Texts in Practice How might these principles look in practice? To an-swer that question, we present an instructional com-posite gleaned from our work with middle- school teachers. Our prototypic school is located in a large urban district with a sizeable percentage of second language learners (65%) and students eligible for free or reduced lunch (87%). The school uses a cohort model with students moving through the grades as intact groups. Mr. Webber teaches 8th grade social studies (a 43- minute period); Ms. Rice teaches 8th grade language arts in a “double period,” encompass-ing both reading and writing instruction (teacher names are pseudonyms). Students’ reading levels in these classes range from 4th through 9th grade.

As CCSS became a district focus, the school principal turned to Ms. Rice for leadership. Although she felt confident in teaching literature and guiding students with varied reading abilities, like many English Language Arts teachers (Meyer, 2013), Ms. Rice was less familiar with the principles of teaching reading and had little experience working with disci-plinary literacy. Mr. Webber viewed texts as

653

Me

diat

ing

Com

ple

x Te

xts

in t

he U

pp

er G

rad

es:

Con

sid

erin

g M

otiv

atio

n, I

nstr

ucti

onal

Int

ensi

ty,

and

Co

gnit

ive

Cha

lleng

e

important learning resources and was interested in developing a broader instructional repertoire to meet the needs of students who found reading difficult. Both teachers decided to collaborate and explore types of instruction that supported achievement of the CCSS. They began with a three- week unit on the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, an es-sential part of the district ’ s eighth- grade social studies curriculum. The sections that follow describe how this collaboration created a more coherent learning experience for students, opening possibilities for ex-tended content exploration (e.g., Applebee et al., 2003 ).

Week One Mr. Webber and Ms. Rice began the unit with ex-cerpts of free videos on the Civil Rights Movement and available on the Public Broadcasting Service website ( www.pbs.org ) (“Eyes on the Prize: American ’ s Civil Rights Movement 1954–1985”; “The Freedom Riders: Threatened, Attacked, Jailed”; and “Freedom Summer: Mississippi, 1964”). While viewing these excerpts during Social Studies, Mr. Webber piqued curiosity and built background knowledge by pausing the videos periodically for stu-dents’ reactions and questions. He recorded these questions around a concept map and organized them for future reference (Figure 1 ).

When students transitioned to Ms. Rice ’ s ELA class, they were introduced to the Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr . (Carson, 2001), a challeng-ing text the teachers selected together. As a knowl-edge goal, the teachers wanted students to understand King ’ s perspectives about the Civil Rights Movement and to consider how these ideas influenced his

actions, and in turn, the events of that historical pe-riod. This goal met the teachers’ overarching objec-tive to create a comprehensive unit that would engage students in rich and cognitively challenging investigations of an important period in American history and to help students develop enduring in-sights about how individuals and the times influence each other.

Because King ’ s autobiography featured dense text that combined King ’ s reflections, excerpts from speeches and correspondence, and explanatory notes from the editor (Carson), the teachers added a com-panion text written at a level accessible to even the struggling readers in class. This text, 10 Days: Martin Luther King Jr . (Colbert, 2008), identified pivotal events in King ’ s life as he assumed a leadership role in the Civil Rights Movement. As students read each chapter from 10 Days and discussed the larger social events surrounding King, Ms. Rice selected related chapters from his Autobiography for students to read, discuss, and write about.

With Mr. Webber ’ s help, Ms. Rice modified her approach to teaching historical texts to help students recognize chronology as a structure to understand historical events. Using a time- sequence graphic or-ganizer (Figure 2 ), Ms. Rice called students’ atten-tion to chronological structure and explained that historians often organize information sequentially. She then taught them how to consider events on the timeline to help identify main ideas.

Taking into account students’ varied reading abilities, Ms. Rice used the graphic organizer in dif-ferent ways during her reading block. Some students used it as a note- taking guide, recording important events as they read silently. Those needing more help worked with Ms. Rice to locate and record important events. On the first day of this small group work, Ms. Rice modeled the use of the organizer as she read the text aloud. Next, students read silently but paused at specified points as Ms. Rice asked, “What seemed to be important here?” “What evidence do you have that the event was important?” “What do others think?” On subsequent days, students in this group worked independently as Ms. Rice circulated and conferred with others. Throughout, she drew students’ attention to the time- sequence text structure and the word choices and syntactical structures that mark these text types. As students read 10 Days and worked with their organizers, they developed background and vocabu-lary knowledge about important events in the Movement that strengthened their understanding of

FIGURE 1 Concept Map with Students’ Questions

654

JOU

RN

AL

OF

AD

OLE

SC

ENT

& A

DU

LT L

ITER

AC

Y

58(

8)

MA

Y 20

15FEATURE ARTICLE

Dr. King ’ s reflections, correspondence, and speeches from his Autobiography.

Through these instructional actions, Ms. Rice ’ s focused, small group work sustained students’ inter-est, understanding, and participation, thus reducing the off- task behaviors that sometimes arise when low- performing readers “check out” of a lesson.

Toward the end of each class period, Ms. Rice reconvened the class and guided students through se-lections from King ’ s Autobiography that further elab-orated the events described in the 10 Days text. She often read these challenging pieces aloud with stu-dents typically re- reading, partner reading, or chorally reading meaningful segments drawn from King ’ s writ-ing or speeches. Asking students to re- read important parts deepened students’ comprehension of King ’ s powerful ideas, reinforced their exposure to King ’ s rich language, syntax, and rhetorical style, and devel-oped their prosodic skills.

To promote students’ motivation and engage-ment and build a social context for learning, Ms. Rice reserved the last 10 minutes of class for students

to discuss their ideas, and based on these conversa-tions, to modify their notes. Discussions occurred on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday class periods, either as a whole class or as small, heterogeneous groups. Because all students read the same texts, they could participate equally in the discussion, and together, co- construct understanding about King and his times.

On Tuesday and Thursday (and for nightly homework), students independently read an autobi-ography of their choice while Ms. Rice conducted individual conferences. Although the people students chose to read about varied widely (e.g., athletes, his-torical, current figures), their task remained the same: to consider how the person influenced and was influ-enced by the times s/he lived in.

During her daily writing block, Ms. Rice built curricular coherence with the same time- sequence organizer used during reading. She taught students how to use the organizer as a planning tool for writ-ing, focusing on a particular event from their lives that detailed how they influenced and were influ-enced by the times in which they lived. Following the whole- class lesson, students moved into independent writing to plan their memoirs. Ms. Rice supported their writing through conferences and small group instruction. Three students who had trouble organiz-ing their ideas met first with Ms. Rice so she could provide additional modeling and guide their brain-storming for the task. After this ten- minute meeting, Ms. Rice spent remaining time conferring with indi-viduals and small groups. Attending again to the social aspects of learning, she provided time for stu-dents to share ideas with peers for feedback and suggestions.

In Social Studies, Mr. Webber augmented the class textbook with a trade book, A Dream of Freedom: The Civil Rights Movement from 1954 to 1968 by Diane McWhorter, complementing information stu-dents gained from Ms. Rice ’ s work with King ’ s auto-biography. Mr. Webber explicitly taught students how to “write like a historian,” paralleling Ms. Rice ’ s instruction on noticing text structures while reading. He incorporated the same time- sequence organizer as Ms. Rice and used A Dream of Freedom as a men-tor text to examine how writers structure texts that report events sequentially and explore differing view-points on a single historical event.

A focus on “writing like a historian” was not new for Mr. Webber. But through collaboration with Ms. Rice, he changed how he mediated students’

FIGURE 2 Time- sequence Organizer for Ms. Rice ’ s Class with 10 Days Martin Luther King, Jr.

655

Me

diat

ing

Com

ple

x Te

xts

in t

he U

pp

er G

rad

es:

Con

sid

erin

g M

otiv

atio

n, I

nstr

ucti

onal

Int

ensi

ty,

and

Co

gnit

ive

Cha

lleng

e

reading of complex texts. Instead of simply reading text aloud, he implemented a new routine to de-velop students’ enduring content understanding. He began by reviewing background knowledge about the Civil Rights Movement generated during the first day of the unit (Figure 1 ); then he established a knowledge goal for reading: answering their ques-tions. Mr. Webber explained how the questions stu-dents had generated fit within a larger essential question: How did people ’ s actions shape the Civil Rights Movement, and how were they influenced by the times?

Using the document camera and SMART board, Mr. Webber modeled previewing the trade book. Referring to the table of contents, headings, and subheadings, he predicted where some student questions might be answered and what clue words helped him make those predictions. He then asked students to preview and read segments of the trade book, assigning students to different “conditions” for reading. Some read silently, while others read with a partner, in each case noting on the time- sequence graphic organizer their thoughts and reasoning re-lated to the knowledge goal. To accommodate strug-gling readers, Mr. Webber worked with a small group and read the text aloud as students followed along, pausing periodically to discuss passages and have students take notes. This small group structure allowed Mr. Webber to offer additional guided prac-tice in using text features and discussion to identify important information and strengthen students’ comprehension.

After each student had read (or listened to) the text, they worked with partners or small groups to re-read portions of the text, discuss, and record addi-tional evidence to support their thinking related to the knowledge goals. Mr. Webber circulated and prompted students to reread the text closely. Each small group then placed their collective ideas, re-corded on sticky notes, within appropriate sections of the class ’ s semantic map. They concluded with a whole- class discussion of the most important informa-tion relative to their knowledge goals—to understand the Civil Rights Movement in the United States and the intended and unintended consequences of peo-ple ’ s actions.

Week Two During the second week, Ms. Rice followed the same framework to guide students through the afore-mentioned texts, facilitating whole- class or

small- group discussions of the texts on Monday and Wednesday and engaging students in independent reading on Tuesday and Thursday. At the week ’ s end, she asked students to use ideas recorded on their graphic organizers and acquired through class discus-sions to compose a written response about King ’ s in-fluence on the times as a means of deepening students’ comprehension and as a formative assessment tool. Through observations during the writing process, Ms. Rice determined what students had learned about King ’ s life in relation to the Civil Rights Movement (see Figure 3 ). Students also con-tinued to compose their memoirs (with Ms. Rice ’ s guidance), and in the second half, they met in peer writing groups to share feedback on their drafts.

For social studies, Mr. Webber and Ms. Rice chose sets of texts focused on the Little Rock Nine (Figure 4 ), a topic that generated many questions dur-ing the initial video- viewing. These texts were intended to show students how historians examine a single as-pect of a historical time period in depth. The text sets also supported students’ motivation by offering choice, as students pursued their own knowledge goals; in ad-dition, the texts represented different levels of cognitive challenge for the range of readers in the classroom. The texts also varied in format and included picture books, graphic texts, and photo essays, enabling stu-dents to gather information in multiple ways.

While reading, students’ overarching knowledge goal was to understand the Little Rock Nine and their influence on the experience of African American stu-dents in U.S. public schools. Mr. Webber gave students the choice of creating a time- sequence orga-nizer or a semantic web similar to those previously modeled and used. To maximize the time students spent reading and finding information and to incor-porate collaboration, Mr. Webber scaffolded the reading by partnering students. Then students collab-oratively chose from the text set. As students worked, Mr. Webber circulated, observed, and occasionally intervened to scaffold shared needs.

Week Three Based on other questions generated at the start of the Civil Rights unit, Mr. Webber created several additional research topics focused on the Greensboro Sit- ins, the Freedom Riders, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and the March on Washington. He used students’ choices to form small research groups assigned with developing expertise on the topic and preparing a presentation to teach their peers. Mr. Webber also gave students the

656

JOU

RN

AL

OF

AD

OLE

SC

ENT

& A

DU

LT L

ITER

AC

Y

58(

8)

MA

Y 20

15FEATURE ARTICLE

choice of using the time- sequence organizer or the se-mantic web to organize information they gathered.

Mr. Webber used one of the school ’ s mobile technology carts to model and guide students through Internet searches, employing technology as a learn-ing tool and means of accessing primary source mate-rials like videos, photos, and scanned documents. After teaching students how to evaluate search results, he asked groups to visit their top three or four sites and discuss the relevance of those sites for their re-search purposes. The groups returned to these sites on subsequent days to read and record pertinent in-formation on their organizers.

During ELA, the groups researched their topics in the library. Ms. Rice and the librarian assembled

text sets on focal research topics, and for the remain-der of the week, groups met to read and discuss the texts. In each group, individuals first read their own texts and completed either time- sequence or semantic web organizers. During this time, Ms. Rice scaffolded the reading and thinking of lower- performing readers by engaging them in assisted reading strategies (e.g., choral reading) and by modeling and guiding students as they read and reread selected parts of the text and took notes. During the final 15 minutes of each pe-riod, students reconvened with their groups to discuss and consolidate their understanding of the topics.

Using the organizer as a plan, students wrote in-dividual reports explaining and analyzing their focal topic in relation to the larger Civil Rights Movement.

FIGURE 3 Excerpt from Student Response about Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

FIGURE 4 Text Set for Little Rock Nine

657

Me

diat

ing

Com

ple

x Te

xts

in t

he U

pp

er G

rad

es:

Con

sid

erin

g M

otiv

atio

n, I

nstr

ucti

onal

Int

ensi

ty,

and

Co

gnit

ive

Cha

lleng

e

This assignment, which was shared with the class dur-ing a publishing celebration, directly addressed the Common Core writing standard that students will “Write informative/explanatory texts, including the narration of historical events, scientific procedures/ experiments, or technical processes” (CCSS.ELA- Literacy.WHST.6- 8.2).

Across the Three Weeks Throughout this interdisciplinary unit, Ms. Rice and Mr. Webber addressed engagement and motivation , intensity , and cognitive challenge to support students’ access to and engagement with complex, disciplinary texts. They en-gaged and motivated students by selecting a broad and sophisticated knowledge goal, allowing students some choice related to reading materials and topics, and incor-porating collaborative opportunities through flexible groupings. They increased instructional intensity through a coherent topical focus on the Civil Rights Movement during three periods of the school day. Intensity was further established by explicitly teaching students to strategically approach reading and writing and offering tailored supports to move students towards independent application. Finally, cognitive challenge was a hallmark of the collaboration between Ms. Rice and Mr. Webber as they built background knowledge and provided historical context to support students’ com-prehension through the use of multiple texts and other forms of media; they provided many texts that were ap-propriate to students’ varied reading levels and helped students access a text (the Autobiography ) that extended beyond many students’ assessed reading levels. Thus, they maintained a depth of learning appropriate for 8th- grade students (e.g., Conley, 2008 ; Frey & Fisher, 2013 ).

Additionally, students used reading, writing, technology, and discussion as valuable research tools; and through participation in targeted instructional activities, they constructed rich networks of new knowledge. Throughout, teachers addressed their dis-trict ’ s content- area curricular requirements and also met multiple demands of the Common Core Anchor Standards for reading and writing in the content areas (CCSS.ELA- LITERACY.RH.6- 8.4 through 6- 8.10). By integrating shared knowledge and literacy goals, these teachers created a host of rich learning opportu-nities for their students.

Concluding Thoughts The CCSS (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State

School Officers, 2010) demand for close reading of increasingly complex text highlights the difficulties many teachers face when trying to engage older, struggling students with grade- level text. The stakes are high, and the challenge is urgent: Without ac-cess to the sophisticated vocabulary, important conceptual understanding, and rich content found

Take ActionS T E P S F O R I M M E D I A T E I M P L E M E N T A T I O N

1 . Form a team comprising a language arts and a content area teacher.

2 . Select a content-related topic that also relates to literature study.

3 . Plan instructional actions that support motivation and engagement .

• Formulate knowledge goals (what you want students to understand about content).

• Build meaningful connections between content and students’ lives.

• Embed choice into your classroom routines through the use of

o Text sets related to the topic of study

o Student grouping

o Varied types of student responses including writing and discussion

4 . Plan instructional actions that support instructional intensity.

• Determine a strategy you will teach to support students’ reading and understanding of the unit texts.

• Attend to brisk pacing in your schedule of activities and tasks.

• Connect current lessons to students’ prior learning and experiences.

• Conclude each lesson with a reminder of what students learned and did, to help them assimilate new learning.

5 . Plan instructional actions that support cognitive challenge.

• Choose age-appropriate and topically related texts that prompt students to grapple with challenging ideas or introduce new challenges.

• Design tasks that engage students with the “big ideas.”

658

JOU

RN

AL

OF

AD

OLE

SC

ENT

& A

DU

LT L

ITER

AC

Y

58(

8)

MA

Y 20

15FEATURE ARTICLE

in grade- level texts, students may fail to develop the cognitive skills and stores of knowledge that pre-pare them for the complex future that awaits. Meeting this challenge calls for a reconceptualized view of effective reading instruction in the class-room that combines greater intensity and cognitive challenge with skillful teacher mediation to engage struggling readers in literacy- based instructional activities and help them to persist in the hard work of school.

References Alfassi , M. ( 2008 ). Reading to learn: Effects of combined strategy

instruction on high school students . The Journal of Educational Research , 97 ( 4 ), 171 – 185 . doi: 10.3200/JOER.97.4.171- 185

Allington , R.L. ( 2011 ). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research based programs ( 3rd ed. ). Boston, MA : Pearson .

Applebee , A.N. , & Langer , J.A. ( 1987 ). How writing shapes think-ing: A study of teaching and learning . Urbana, IL : National Council of Teachers of English .

Applebee , A.N. , Langer , J.A. , Nystrand , M. , & Gamoran , A. ( 2003 ). Discussion- based approaches to developing under-standing: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English . American Educational Research Journal , 40 ( 3 ), 685 – 730 .

Aukerman , M.S. ( 2007 ). When reading it wrong is getting it right: Shared evaluation pedagogy among struggling fifth grade readers . Research in the Teaching of English , 42 ( 1 ), 56 – 103 .

Aulls , M.W. ( 2002 ). The contributions of co- occurring forms of classroom discourse and academic activities to curriculum events and instruction . Journal of Educational Psychology , 94 ( 3 ), 520 – 538 .

Balfanz , R. , McPartland , J. , & Shaw , A. ( 2002 ). Re-conceptualizing extra help for high school students in a high standards era . Baltimore, MD : Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University .

Bost , L.W. , & Riccomini , P.J. ( 2006 ). Effective instruction: An inconspicuous strategy for dropout prevention . Remedial & Special Education , 27 , 301 – 311 .

Carson , C. (Ed.). ( 2001 ). The autobiography of Martin Luther King,Jr. New York, NY: Warner Books.

Certo , J.L. , Cauley , K.M. , Moxley , K.D. , & Chafin , C. ( 2008 ). An argument for authenticity: Adolescents’ perspectives on standards- based reform . High School Journal , 91 ( 4 ), 26 – 39 .

Colbert , D. ( 2008 ). 10 days: Martin Luther King Jr. New York, NY : Aladdin Paperbacks .

Conley , M.W. ( 2008 ). Cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents: What we know about the promise, what we don ’ t know about the potential . Harvard Educational Review , 78 ( 1 ), 84 – 106 .

Cunningham , A.E. , & Stanovich , K.E. ( 1998 ). Early reading ac-quisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later . Developmental Psychology , 33 ( 6 ), 934 – 945 .

Frey , N. , & Fisher , D. ( 2013 ). Rigorous Reading: 5 access points for comprehending complex texts . Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin .

Guthrie , J.T. ( 2011 ). Best practices in motivating students to read . In L.M. Morrow & L.B. Gambrell (Eds.), Best practices in lit-eracy instruction ( 4th ed. , pp. 177 – 198 ). New York, NY : Guilford Press .

Guthrie , J. T. , & Humenick , N. M . ( 2004 ). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase read-ing motivation and achievement . In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 329 – 354 ). Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes .

Guthrie , J.T. , Klauda , S.L. , & Ho , A.N. ( 2013 ). Modeling the re-lationships among reading instruction, motivation, engage-ment, and achievement for adolescents . Reading Research Quarterly , 48 , 9 – 26 . doi: 10.1002/rrq.035

Harris , J.A. ( 2005 ). Creating opportunities to acquire new word meanings from text . In E.H. Hiebert & M.L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to prac-tice (pp. 69 – 91 ). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .

Henderson , S.C. , & Dorn , L.J. ( 2011 ). Supporting students who struggle with comprehension of text: Using literature discus-sion groups in grades 3–6 . In J.R. Paratore & R.L. McCormack (Eds.), After early intervention, then what? (pp. 137 – 161 ). Newark, DE : International Reading Association .

Hindin , A. , Morocco , C.C. , & Aguilar , C.M. ( 2001 ). “This book lives in our school”: Teaching middle school students to un-derstand literature . Remedial and Special Education , 22 , 204 – 214 .

Kucan , L. , & Palincsar , A.S. ( 2013 ). Comprehension instruction through text-based discussions . Newark, DE : International Reading Association .

Kuhn , M.R. , Groff , C. , & Morrow , L.M. ( 2011 ). Reading fluency beyond the primary grades: Building foundations in literacy for struggling readers . In J.R. Paratore & R.L. McCormack (Eds.), After early intervention, then what? (pp. 42 – 65 ). Newark, DE : International Reading Association .

Langer , J. A . ( 1999 ). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well . National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement , (CELA-RR-12014). Washington, DC : Office of Educational Research and Improvement .

Lau , K.L. ( 2009 ). Reading motivation, perceptions of reading in-struction, and reading amount: A comparison of junior and secondary students in Hong Kong . Journal of Research in Reading , 32 , 366 – 382 .

Lipson , M.Y. , & Wixson , K.K. ( 2009 ). Assessment and instruction of reading and writing difficulty: An interactive approach . Boston, MA : Allyn and Bacon .

Maloch , B. ( 2002 ). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher ’ s role in literature discussion groups . Reading Research Quarterly , 37 ( 1 ), 94 – 112 .

McCray , A.D. , Vaughn , S. , & LaVonne , I.N. ( 2001 ). Not all stu-dents learn to read by third grade: Middle school students speak out about their reading disabilities . Journal of Special Education , 35 , 17 – 30 .

McKeown , M.G. , Beck , I.L. , & Blake , G.K. ( 2009 ). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruc-tion for strategies and content approaches . Reading Research Quarterly , 44 ( 3 ), 218 – 253 .

Meyer , C. ( 2013 ). The literacy needs of adolescents: What do content-area teachers know? Action in Teacher Education , 35 , 56 – 71 .

659

Me

diat

ing

Com

ple

x Te

xts

in t

he U

pp

er G

rad

es:

Con

sid

erin

g M

otiv

atio

n, I

nstr

ucti

onal

Int

ensi

ty,

and

Co

gnit

ive

Cha

lleng

e

Monahan , M.B. ( 2013 ). Writing “voiced” arguments about science topics: Answering the CCSS call for integrated literacy instruc-tion . Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 57 ( 1 ), 31 – 41 .

National Assessment of Educational Progress . ( 2013 ). Reading Assessment. U.S . Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/moreabout.aspx

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers . ( 2010 ). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects, Appendix A . Washington, DC, Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf

Newmann , F.M. , Smith , B. , Allensworth , E. , & Bryk , A.S. ( 2001 ). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy . Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis , 23 ( 4 ), 297 – 321 .

Palincsar , A.S. , & Brown , A.L. ( 1986 ). Interactive teaching to pro-mote independent learning from text . The Reading Teacher , 39 ( 8 ), 771 – 777 .

Paris , S.G. , Lipson , M.Y. , & Wixson , K.K. ( 1983 ). Becoming a stra-tegic reader . Contemporary Educational Psychology , 8 , 293 – 316 .

Parr , J.M. , & Limbrick , L. ( 2010 ). Contextualizing Practice: Hallmarks of effective teachers of writing . Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies , 26 ( 3 ), 583 – 590 .

Reznitskaya , A. , Glina , M. , Carolan , B. , Michaud , O. , Rogers , J. , & Sequeira , L. ( 2012 ). Examining transfer effects from dia-logic discussions to new tasks and contexts . Contemporary Educational Psychology , 37 , 288 – 306 .

Shanahan , T. , & Shanahan , C. ( 2008 ). Teaching disciplinary lit-eracy to adolescents: Rethinking content- area literacy . Harvard Educational Review , 78 , 40 – 59 .

Stahl , S.A. , & Nagy , W.E. ( 2006 ). Teaching word meanings . New York, NY : Routledge .

Stanovich , K.E. ( 2000 ). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers . New York, NY : Guilford Press .

Taboada , A. , Tonks , S.M. , Wigfield , A. , & Guthrie , J.T. ( 2009 ). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 22 ( 1 ), 85 – 106 .

Vaughn , S. , Swanson , E.A. , Roberts , G. , Wanzek , J. , Stillman-Spisak , S.J. , Solis , M. , & Simmons , D. ( 2013 ). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school . Reading Research Quarterly , 48 ( 1 ), 77 – 93 . doi: 10.1002/rrq.039

Literature Cited Aretha , D . ( 2014 ). The story of the Little Rock Nine and school

desegregation in photographs (Story of the Civil Rights Movement in Photographs Series). Berkeley Heights, NJ : Enslow Publishers .

Counts , I.W . ( 2007 ). A life is more than a moment: The desegrega-tion of Little Rock ’ s Central High . Bloomington, IN : Indiana University Press

Fitzgerald , S . ( 2006 ). The Little Rock Nine: Struggle for integra-tion (Snapshots in History Series). Mankato, MN : Capstone Publishers

Jeffrey , G . ( 2012 ). The Little Rock Nine and the fight for equal education (Graphic History of the Civil Rights Movement Series). Milwaukee, WI : Gareth Stevens Publishing .

Lucas , E . ( 1997 ). Cracking the wall: The struggles of the Little Rock nine . Minneapolis, MN : Carolrhoda Books .

Lucas , E. , & Gustavson , A . ( 2011 ). The Little Rock nine stand up for their rights (History Speaks Series). Minneapolis, MN : Lerner Classroom .

McWhorter , D . ( 2004 ). A dream of freedom: The civil rights movement from 1954 to 1968 . New York, NY : Scholastic Nonfiction .

Miller , M . ( 2008 ). School desegregation and the story of the Little Rock nine . Berkeley Heights, NJ : Enslow Publishers .

Poe , M . ( 2008 ). Little Rock nine (Turning Points). New York, NY : Aladdin .

Tisdale , R . ( 2014 ). The Little Rock nine: We shall overcome . New York, NY : Powerkids Press .

Read More on This Topic Elish-Piper , L. , Wold , L.S. , & Schwingendorf , K . ( 2014 ).

Scaffolding high school students’ reading of complex texts us-ing linked text sets . Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 57 ( 7 ), 565 – 574 .

Fang , Z . ( 2014 ). Disciplinary literacy in science: Developing sci-ence literacy through trade books . Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 57 ( 4 ), 272 – 277 .

Robertson , D.A. , Dougherty , S. , Ford-Connors , E. , & Paratore , J.R . ( 2014 ). Re- Envisioning Instruction: Mediating complex text for older readers . The Reading Teacher , 67 ( 7 ), 545 – 557 .

More to ExploreC O N N E C T E D C O N T E N T - B A S E D R E S O U R C E S

✓ Additional sequence organizer and instructional idea s: http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/printouts/sequence-events-chart-30580.html

✓ Deeper exploration of MLK ’ s seminal “I Have a Dream” speech : http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/calendar-activities/martin-luther-king-delivered-20281.html

✓ Additional resources about the Little Rock Nine : http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/calendar-activities/central-high-school-little-20297.html